Now that is unfair. It also serves as a petting zoo for CVEs. Honestly tragic, I am starting to feel concerned for their well-being. So many in one code base, that has to violate some welfare laws. Almost 600 in less than a year, roughly two per day, utterly insane.
In all seriousness, the fact that OpenClaw wasn't treated as an interesting, but failed experiment and shut down is telling for this industry. Is just letting LLMs output code without reviewing the results a path towards major issues? Nah, that can't be the case.
And to proof it, here is a piece of software with some of the most CVEs relative to its size and age we have ever seen. We then get some highly paid engineers from companies like Nvidia assigned to somehow finagle it into a workable state. Not like, if LLMs where at the point that the purveyors of OpenClaw and co. seem to think they are, the models should be able to fix any issues by themselves. Especially considering the obscene amounts of free OpenAI tokens Peter Steinberger proudly uses.
In any sane time, we'd have looked at the result of OpenClaw and assessed it as not salvageable. This was barely more than an experiment when it became apparent that the inherent design was flawed after all. Mind you, it was a very informative experiment and I am thankful it exists as clear-cut evidence of the capabilities the models have at the end of 2025 up to now in 2026. Basically, OpenClaw Alpha should have been released as proof that LLMs aren't there yet and need strict review+guidance.
Development should have been restarted from scratch with A.) humans verifying the output, B.) an actual architecture in mind that the (human) developers designed and that took some learnings from the original release and C.) admitted that LLM coding in the way that yielded the original OpenClaw (as in, low to no human verification) shouldn't be done by anyone, at least with todays models.